“Audubon’s equivocal policy on wind power ostensibly calls on wind energy developers to consider planning, siting, and operating wind farms in a manner that avoids bird carnage and supports ‘strong enforcement’ of laws protecting birds and wildlife. On the other hand, the same Audubon policy speaks about ‘species extinctions and other catastrophic effects of climate change’ and ‘pollution from fossil fuels’.”
The cover of the January-February 2016 issue of Audubon Magazine proclaims: Arctic on the Edge: As global warming opens our most critical bird habitat, the world is closing in. In reality, it is the magazine’s writers and editors who have gone over the edge with their misleading reports on the Arctic.
This magazine is so awash in misstatements of fact and plain ignorance of history, science, and culture, that they must not go unchallenged – especially since they epitomize the false and misleading claims that have characterized far too much of the U.S.…
Continue Reading“As you can see, with larger turbines coming on line, we now have understandings of the effects over distances longer than previously assumed, and that requires us to rethink setbacks. The Shirley Wind Project [in Wisconsin] has engendered such severe health problems that the Public Health Unit declared the wind project a “human health hazard.”
The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) has consulted with interested parties to update requirements for industrial wind turbines in the state regarding siting, wildlife impacts, health and safety, construction impacts, decommissioning, shadow flicker, ice throw, and noise (including infrasound).
Governor Kasich has instituted five year re-evaluations of the regulations and statutes under the Common Sense Initiative (Executive Order 2011-OlK). The consultation described here is carried out under the OPSB’s second finding and order in case number 12-1981-EL-BRO, finding 17, which welcomes further consideration of concerns expressed by the Stakeholders.…
Continue ReadingAbstract: Governor Andrew Cuomo, who supports an energy quota forcing New York to buy half of its energy from qualifying renewables by 2030, does not see the problems that would be caused by coating Upstate, Central and Western New York with sprawling, low-output, intrusive, bird-unfriendly wind turbines. All would be paying for the high upfront costs of the unneeded investment, including additional power lines that will be necessary to run the intermittent, unreliable wind energy from rural New York to New York City. Fortunately, the people are fighting back with proposed ordinances against wind turbines. This is not only good for residents and the environment, it is good for ratepayers across the state and taxpayers across the nation. (Part II tomorrow will overview Ohio’s wind turbine siting debate.)
The New York towns of Yates and Somerset are faced with the prospect of up to 70 massive turbines, 600–630 feet tall, which would tower over everything else.…
Continue Reading